Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#651

Post by josho »

electrograv wrote: post #537
tomschlick wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.

I've read that police departments were literally given these vehicles. I challenge someone to call BAE up and actually get a price quote and delivery timeline, here's the website to get you started. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/rg33-mineresistant-amb...

My point, is these were given to the police. While a civilian may technically be eligible to buy one for $500k (bulk pricing) but we realistically have no opportunity to purchase. So the parent's comment applies.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#653

Post by dang »

taobility wrote: post #492
headsupftw wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you in good consciousness support the U.S. government? I'm asking because the government doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent country and kicked Taiwan out of the United Nations in 1971.

haha, your question killed him

Please don't do this here.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#654

Post by tru3_power »

starbeast wrote: post #399
RickS wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, and not sure this is what OP's talking about, but I have examples. First, anything piracy related. Previously you could search something like "albumname zip rar torrent" and get vast lists of downloads. It's unclear whether the presence of scam links or the illegality of filesharing prompted the removal of valid results for this class of searches, but it's nonetheless true that this type of search returned us…

>search has transitioned from "show me what is on the internet, limited by the power of our algorithms" into something more like "show me what is on the internet, limited by the overton window[2] of our legal, PR, and advertiser-relations departments". I'd say it has gone full; "Show me what your advertisers and other sources of income, would like someone like me to find on the internet."

I’ve realized the same thing. Do you have any google search alternatives?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#655

Post by dymk »

scarface74 wrote: post #624
dymk wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, so do you suggest that the company's morally correct employees leave, and cause a moral evaporative cooling at the company? If anything, you should be urging your moral friends and coworkers to go to Google.

I’m not saying they should leave or stay. But, protestors in the 60s were willing to get kicked, beaten, arrested, etc for their moral beliefs. They were willing to make real sacrifices. On the other hand, Google employees had the “courage” to sign a letter.

What protesters were willing to do in the 60s or in 2018 is orthogonal to ensuring that Google maintains a workforce of "moral" people.

Suggestions that those who think that Google is going down a dark path should leave will just result in moral evaporative cooling, which leaves everybody off worse.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#656

Post by choot »

nimbius wrote: post #33

Pretty bold. A lot of people are saying this wont work, but speaking from my own experience, you'd be surprised what companies are amicable to when it comes to business. Im an engine mechanic by trade, and our shops handle bids for cash strapped local governments that outsource their motor pool maintenance. We do things like fire trucks and police cars, but we were working on a new regional idea as a "service center"…

Wow! So basically, someone managed to risk police offier lives with their ill thought out plan and people on HN are applauding them?

What should a police crew use against a criminal equipped with high caliber armor piercing guns?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#657

Post by gpvos »

electrograv wrote: post #513
tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, a…

LEO = law enforcement officer (not Low Earth Orbit)

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#658

Post by yholio »

maccam94 wrote: post #637
yholio wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that a foreign corporation has a duty to break Chinese law with regards to web filtering is very problematic, if that's what you mean by "give concessions to the government". How far should such a corporation go with breaking the law, is tax evasion against the Chinese state morally acceptable, since those taxes might be used for oppression? We should recognize here a very thin line between respecting the Ch…

Are there any legal restrictions on what the Chinese government can ask websites to censor? I am not aware of any, so I don't see where there would be an opportunity to protest.

I believe it's already established that operating in China means responding to all censorship requests. Nonetheless, there are still many things an ethical company could refuse: access to the private searches and information of an individual without a due legal process, collecting sensitive information altogether knowing that it's fair game for the state, knowingly alter or influence results to promote official narratives and propaganda, knowingly use or profit from the proceeds of labor camps, underage or other forms of work exploitation; and many, many more, which are surely not positively codified in any Chinese law, yet are widespread.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#659

Post by PavlovsCat »

IncRnd wrote: post #610
PavlovsCat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s an unfortunate error to believe it represents any reality other than Google’s opinion of what its users want in that second. That was also true when search results were purely based on terms entered, barring the domain name affecting the default language, and user configuration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble > A filter bubble – a term coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser – is a state of intell…

Google consensus has never been a good way to verify words or meanings. Just look up the definition of the word "definition" in google. The google supplied definition matches no major dictionary online.

That was over 15 years ago, there were no google supplied anythings, just search results :) And it was just for spelling, not meaning. like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear 397.000.000 results

https://www.google.com/search?q=nucular 172.000 results

Which obviously still works, but it was just the most simple example of "search engine consensus reality" I could think of.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#660

Post by josho »

markdown wrote: post #588
tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

> While I get that they "look scary" to some people . That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".

Here's a great example of how the police have failed to live up to 'serve and protect'.

Here is an EU police car. Note it's bright colours to be easily spotted. Dare I say this car looks friendly. http://cdn1.blog.powerblocktv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10...

Now, here's a US police _interceptor_. The front grill looks like it's ready to ram me. http://s3.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-F...

The MRAP's to your point only exacerbate existing problems in the US police state. I don't see why the police (and some folks here) can't see that.

Post reply on HN